Translate

Tuesday, May 30, 2017

ABOVE: TWO MAPS SHOWING LOCATIONS OF AMERICA'S STOCK OF ACTIVE NUCLEAR REACTORS, OWNED BY GOVERNMENT AND PRIVATE INDUSTRY AND BY 'RESEARCH FACILITIES' AT UNIVERSITIES AND 'TESTING LABS'.

ABOVE: THE SPREAD OF NUCLEAR FALLOUT/RADIATION FROM ONE FAILED NUCLEAR POWER PLANT IN PENNSYLVANIA.

THE NEWS BROKE 5 DAYS AGO, BUT DID THE FOLLOWING APPEAR IN MAJOR MEDIA IN THE U.S.?NO.WHY NOT?SAME REASON AS ALWAYS, SO THE AMERICAN PEOPLE DON'T GET 'UP ON ARMS' TO SHUT DOWN THE CURSED NUKE PLANTS AND COST THE NUCLEAR INDUSTRY BILLIONS TO TRILLIONS OF DOLLARS TO SHUT DOWN AND CLEAN UP THE 100 OPERATIONAL SITES, AND THE MULTITUDE OF OLD, CONTAMINATED SITES ACROSS THE USA. IT'S AS GOOD AS JAPAN'S "NUCLEAR NEWS BLACKOUT". A PUBLIC THAT ISN'T AWARE OF ONGOING HAZARDS WON'T MAKE DEMANDS FOR THEIR SAFETY.

A major fire “could dwarf the horrific consequences of the Fukushima accident,” says Edwin Lyman, a physicist at the Union of Concerned Scientists, a nonprofit in Washington, D.C. “We’re talking about trillion-dollar consequences,” says Frank von Hippel, a nuclear security expert at Princeton University, who teamed with Princeton’s Michael Schoeppner on the modeling exercise. The revelations come on the heels of a report last week from the U.S. National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine.

At most U.S. nuclear plants, spent fuel is densely packed in pools, heightening the fire risk.

The contamination from such a fire on U.S. soil “would be an unprecedented peacetime catastrophe,” the Princeton researchers conclude in a paper to be submitted to the journal Science & Global Security."I HAD NO IDEA HOW SERIOUS THIS IS UNTIL I READ THE PDF I INCLUDE EXCERPTS FROM BELOW. IT WAS A HARSH WAKE-UP CALL.

BECAUSE
CONGRESS AND THE NRC (NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION) ARE MORE CONCERNED
WITH NOT CAUSING HUGE FINANCIAL OUTLAYS BY THE NUCLEAR INDUSTRY THAN
THEY ARE CONCERNED WITH HUMAN LIFE, AS I SEE IT, AND AS MANY HAVE SEEN
IT FOR DECADES, WE WON'T HAVE A CHOICE EXCEPT TO SIT HERE AND WAIT FOR DISASTER.

ABOVE: USGS EARTHQUAKE HAZARD MAP, SHOWING MOST VULNERABLE SPOTS IN AMERICA FOR EARTHQUAKES.NOTE HOW MANY REACTORS LIE WITHIN THOSE HIGH-HAZARD AREAS?

WHAT FOLLOWS IS FROM A STUDY IN 2011 ENTITLED "SPENT NUCLEAR FUEL POOLS IN AMERICA: REDUCING THE DEADLY RISKS OF STORAGE", BY ROBERT ALVAREZ. [NOTE: THIS IS AN INSTANT DOWNLOAD PDF, AND IS ALSO AVAILABLE AT THE NRC DOCUMENTS PAGE <HERE>, ALSO AN INSTANT DOWNLOAD. I INCLUDE AN IMPORTANT TABLE FROM THIS DOCUMENT AT THE END OF THIS BLOG ENTRY WHICH SHOWS A LIST OF THE MAJOR RADIOACTIVE PARTICLES RELEASED BY SPENT FUEL RODS. THERE IS MUCH MORE THAN CESIUM TO BE CONCERNED ABOUT.]

I WILL ADMIT TO YOU THAT, TO ME, IT IS ONE OF THE MOST FOREBODING, DISCONCERTING PAPERS I HAVE EVER READ REGARDING NUCLEAR POWER PLANTS: "As of 2011, U.S. reactors have generated about 65,000 metric tons of spent fuel, of which 75 percent is stored in pools, according to Nuclear Energy Institute data.A spent fuel rod gives off about 1 million rems (10,00Sv) of radiation per hour at a distance of one foot — enough radiation to kill people in a matter of seconds. There are more than 30 million such rods in U.S. spent fuel pools.No other nation has generated this much radioactivity from either nuclear power or nuclear weapons production.

U.S. spent pools hold about 15-30 times more cesium-137 than the Chernobyl accident released. For instance, the pool at the Vermont Yankee reactor, a BWR Mark I, currently holds nearly three times the amount of spent fuel stored at Dai-Ichi's crippled Unit 4 reactor. The Vermont Yankee reactor also holds about seven percent more radioactivity thanthe combined total in the pools at the four troubled reactors at the Fukushima site.U.S. spent nuclear fuel pools are mostly contained in ordinary industrial structures designed to merely protect them against the elements. Some are made from materials commonly used to house big-box stores and cardealerships.The United States has 31 boiling water reactors (BWR) with pools elevated several stories above ground, similar to those at the Fukushima Dai-Ichi station.

As in Japan, all spent fuel pools at nuclear power plants do not have steel-lined, concrete barriers that cover reactor vessels to prevent the escape of radioactivity. They are not required to have back-up generators to keep used fuel rods cool, if offsite power is lost. "

IMAGINE THIS: WHETHER FROM EARTHQUAKE OR EXPLOSION, THE GROUND SHOOK, AND THEN THE FIRE BEGAN IN A SPENT FUEL POOL AT PEACH BOTTOM NUCLEAR PLANT, PENNSYLVANIA."At first, it would mostly affect a small part of Pennsylvania and Philadelphia, also touching on New York, Massachusetts and Connecticut. However, within three months almost all the East Coast from South Carolina to Maine would become contaminated to varying extents, with radiation going deeper into the land later on."

KNOW THIS: THREE STUDIES, TWO PRIOR TO THE ONE JUST RELEASED, SHOW CLEARLY THAT THIS WOULD BE WORSE THAN FUKUSHIMA, WHICH MANY SCIENTISTS NOW SAY WAS WORSE THAN CHERNOBYL.

WE HAVE KNOWN OF THIS VERY REAL DANGER FROM EITHER TERRORIST ATTACK OR EARTHQUAKE, OR OTHER 'ACCIDENT' FOR AT LEAST 20 YEARS, YET NOTHING HAS BEEN DONE TO SAFEGUARD THE VULNERABILITY OF ALL THOSE SPENT FUEL POOLS...NOTHING!

June 7, 2005 Council on Foreign Relations Washington, DC Transcript of First Roundtable on Nuclear Security Issues:

"The committee recommended that the Nuclear Regulatory Commission undertake plant-by-plant analyses to obtain a better understanding of potential vulnerabilities. The committee also recommended that the Commission undertake additional analyses to better understand the potential consequences of certain kinds of terrorist attacks and to better understand the initiation and propagation of zirconium cladding fires in spent fuel pools.

The committee concluded that once these analyses were complete, the commission itself might determine that earlier than planned movements of fuel from pools to dry casks might be prudent at some plants."

He continues:"The main issue with dry cask storage is its cost. It can cost a utility several tens of millions of dollars to build and license a dry cask storage facility and over a million dollars to purchase and load a single dry cask. The cask can only hold between 10 and 15 metric tons of fuel, so three to four casks are needed for each reactor discharge every 18 to 24 months. The committee notes that such a system could be difficult to design and expensive to install and, moreover, that it may not be needed at all plants. It recommended that cost-benefit considerations be used to determine the needs for these systems."

IN SHORT, HE OFFERED A WAY OUT OF PUTTING THE SPENT FUEL IN DRY CASKS!HE OFFERED A WAY TO SAVE THE NUCLEAR INDUSTRY MONEY, BUT ADMITTED THERE WAS NO CURRENT DESIGN THAT COULD SAFEGUARD THE CURRENT OR FUTURE SPENT POOLS!

IF WE BEGAN TODAY, IT WOULD TAKE AN ESTIMATED $50 MILLION AND 5 YEARS PER SPENT FUEL POOL TO REMOVE AND SAFELY STORE THE CAUSE OF SUCH WIDESPREAD NUCLEAR FALLOUT.IF WE BEGAN NOW...BUT WE WON'T.

THE NUCLEAR INDUSTRY WANTS THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT, THROUGH TAXPAYER FUNDS, TO FINANCE THIS SAFEGUARD THAT WOULD REDUCE SUCH A THREAT BY 99%.THE FEDS WON'T COMMIT TO THAT, CONGRESS WON'T BREACH THAT POSSIBILITY BECAUSE THEY KNOW THAT THE AMERICAN PUBLIC IS SICK AND TIRED OF BEING TAXED FOR EVERYTHING THE FEDS SCREW-UP, FOR ERRORS OF JUDGEMENT, FOR BLUNDERS AND OVERSIGHTS.IT'S A STALEMATE.

THE BIG NUKE BOYS WON'T COUGH UP THE $$$$ AND THE FEDS WON'T COMMIT TO TRYING TO RAISE FUNDS, SO, TO PUT IT BLUNTLY, WE, YOU AND I AND GENERATIONS TO COME ARE SCREWED. NOTHING STANDS IN THE WAY OF THESE THOUSANDS OF SPENT FUEL POOLS BEING TURNED INTO A MEGA-DISASTER. THE NRC WON'T FORCE THIS ISSUE, CONGRESS WON'T WRITE LEGISLATION TO MAKE BIG NUKE COMPLY, EVEN THOUGH THAT ONE LOGICAL CHANGE WOULD MAKE CERTAIN THIS NEVER HAPPENS.

THE OLD MILITARY ACRONYM "FUBAR" COMES TO MIND AS FAR AS WE AMERICAN CITIZENS ARE CONCERNED. BETTER TO PROTECT THE WALLETS OF THE NUCLEAR INDUSTRY THAN SAFEGUARD AMERICAN LIVES AND PROPERTY.

“The NRC has been pressured by the nuclear industry, directly and through Congress, to low-ball the potential consequences of a fire because of concerns that increased costs could result in shutting down more nuclear power plants,” said paper co-author Frank von Hippel, a senior research physicist at Princeton’s Program on Science and Global Security (SGS), based at the Woodrow Wilson School of Public and International Affairs.

“Unfortunately, if there is no public outcry about this dangerous situation, the NRC will continue to bend to the industry’s wishes.”

[NOTE: To access the Science article, see Edwin Lyman's, a senior scientist at the Union of Concerned Scientists, new blog post on their findings.]

"The NRC previously said the transfer of spent fuel, which could reduce the threat of radioactive releases by 99 percent, would require additional spending of $50 million per pool. "An accident, ONE ACCIDENT, would result in $1 TRILLION TO $2 TRILLION in damages, as the research showed and radioactive contamination WOULD, ALSO AS SHOWN, go beyond 50 miles of the site.

BUT, ACCORDING TO THE NRC, THAT WON'T HAPPEN, MAYBE BECAUSE THEY THINK RADIOACTIVITY CAN BE TRAINED TO STAY WHERE IT'S RELEASED?ONLY A FOOL WOULD THINK THAT.

"The NRC, in sharp contrast to the researchers' estimates., stated the leak would not extend beyond 50 miles and could cost just $125 billion in damages.".

WELL, IF THE LEAK WERE, SAY, IN NEW YORK, OR CALIFORNIA, HOW MANY MILLIONS OF AMERICANS WOULD GET HIT BY RADIATION?HOW MANY ACRES OF FARMLAND WOULD BE LOST TO RADIOACTIVE CONTAMINATION IF SUCH AN ACCIDENT HAPPENED IN FLORIDA OR CALIFORNIA? HOW MANY RIVERS, STREAMS AND HOW MUCH GROUNDWATER WOULD BE RENDERED TOXIC AFTER SUCH AN ACCIDENT? HOW MANY FOOD ANIMALS, FISH, BIRDS WOULD BE LOST?THE NRC AND CONGRESS DON'T GIVE A SMALL DAMN.THEY'RE CONCERNED THAT THE NUCLEAR INDUSTRY WOULD HAVE TO SHELL OUT $50 MILLION PER POOL TO FIX THIS.

"The NRC also said that the consequences would be dealt with within a year, while the Chernobyl and Fukushima accidents have shown much worse effects, with the areas still deserted."

CHERNOBYL WILL NOT BE HABITABLE IN OUR LIFETIMES, AND JAPAN IS FORCING ITS PEOPLE BACK INTO KNOWN RADIOACTIVE TOWNS AFTER 6 YEARS BECAUSE IT WANTS TO LOOK GOOD FOR THE 2020 OLYMPICS, BUT A RADIOACTIVE CONTAMINATION LIKE FUKUSHIMA SHOULD REMAIN UNPOPULATED FOR AT LEAST 40 TO 100 YEARS, LONGER IF ONE TRULY CARES WHETHER OR NOT PEOPLE GET CANCER FROM GONG BACK THERE.

The authors point out that if the NRC does not take action to reduce this danger, Congress has the authority to fix the problem. Moreover, the authors suggest that states that provide subsidies to uneconomical nuclear reactors within their borders could also play a constructive role by making those subsidies available only for plants that agreed to carry out expedited transfer of spent fuel.

“In far too many instances, the NRC has used flawed analysis to justify inaction, leaving millions of Americans at risk of a radiological release that could contaminate their homes and destroy their livelihoods,” said Lyman. “It is time for the NRC to employ sound science and common-sense policy judgments in its decision-making process.”

But in 2008, the USGS discovered that the Diablo (near San Luis Obispo) power plant was built less than a half mile from previously unknown earthquake fault and that San Diego's San Onofre plant is highly susceptible to both earthquakes and tsunamis. California is at risk for both.The Cascadian Subduction Zone off the coast of British Columbia, Washington, Oregon and the northernmost part of California shook with a vigorous 9.0 on January 26, 1700.

That's especially the case, he said, if there were a call to evacuate a 50-mile radius -- the distance the U.S. government recently urged Americans to evacuate around an earthquake-damaged Japanese nuclear power plant.

"The truth is, most Americans live within 50 miles of a nuclear power plant," O'Donnell said.

O'Donnell and his guest, Daniel Aldrich, author of 'Site Fights', used the example of the Indian Point nuclear power plant in New York. A 50-mile radius around that plant alone includes almost all of New York City, and large chunks of northern New Jersey -- more than 8 million people.

Aldrich said evacuating a 50-mile radius around the Indian Point plant would cause a "tremendous amount of confusion and chaos as people locally flee and try to preserve themselves."

Said O'Donnell: "There is no real evacuation plan from a place like Indian Point."

We rate O'Donnell's statement True."

THAT THE NRC DENIES PEOPLE COULD NOT EVACUATE IN TIME TO AVOID BEING SERIOUSLY AFFECTED BY RADIATION SPEAKS VOLUMES.THEY KNOW IT WOULDN'T BE POSSIBLE, BUT THEY CALM THE MASSES WITH FALSE PROMISES THAT ALL WOULD BE WELL.THEY KNOW THAT IS UNTRUE.

AND NOW, WE KNOW THE FACTS.

WHAT NOW, AMERICA?

__________________________________OTHER SOURCES, FURTHER READING:[MY NOTE: IF I LIST A PDF, IT WILL LIKELY BE A LINK TO AN INSTANT DOWNLOAD...BE AWARE OF THIS WHEN YOU CLICK LINKS IF YOU DO NOT WANT TO DOWNLOAD A PDF.]

~ The 69 Pressurized Water (PWR) reactors operating in the U.S. do not haveelevated pools, and also lack proper containment and several have large cavities beneath them which could exacerbate leakage.For nearly 30 years, Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) waste-storage requirements have remained contingent on the opening of a permanent waste repository that has yet to materialize.

One thing, however, is clear, whether we like it or not: the largest concentrations of radioactivity on the planet will remain in storage at U.S. reactor sites for the indefinite future.

In protecting America from nuclear catastrophe, safely securing the spent fuel by eliminating highly radioactive, crowded pools should be a public safety priority of the highest degree.

With a price tag of as much as $7 billion, the cost of fixing America’s nuclear vulnerabilities may sound high, especially given the heated budget debate occurring in Washington.

But the price of doing too little is incalculable. Without decisive action, the problem will only grow larger and more dangerous.

U.S. nuclear reactors generate about 2,000 metric tons of spent fuel each year.

Total: 12,000,000,000 ciSource: DOE/EIS-0250, Appendix AThe government's estimate of radioactivity in spent fuel is lower than actual amounts at reactors because it does not include other isotopes that have decayed away after 23 years and only includes long-lived radioactivity with half-lives ranging from tens of years to millions of years.

Monday, May 22, 2017

IMPORTANT UPDATE: An emergency number is available for those who are concerned about loved ones or anyone who may have been in the area - 0161 856 9400Casualty figures update: Now 59Posted at 21:23 IN LONDON BY THE BBCThe North West Ambulance Service has given an update on the number of casualties from the Manchester Arena explosion.https://twitter.com/NWAmbulance

Update: 22 dead is the new number of fatalities, some were younger children.

UPDATE: A NEARBY MANCHESTER MALL HAS BEEN EVACUATED, BUT SO FAR, NO THREAT DETECTED.

9:09 PM, U.S. CENTRAL TIME, MAY 22, 2017UPDATES WILL BE POSTED AS COMMENTS IN THE COMMENTS SECTION BELOW THIS BLOG ENTRY. THAT MAKES FOR EASIER, FASTER UPDATES. AS OF NOW, IT IS A 'SUSPECTED TERRORIST ATTACK"...

UNTIL THE POLICE ISSUE A CALL NUMBER FOR FAMILIES OF THOSE ATTENDING THE CONCERT, FACEBOOK HAS ACTIVATED ITS "SAFETY CHECK", SO TRY THAT IF YOUR LOVED ONES HAVE A FACEBOOK ACCOUNT. FOR PARENTS OR FAMILY OR FRIENDS OF THOSE ATTENDING, IT MAY HELP TO DO A GOOGLE IMAGE SEARCH FOR ' 19 DEAD CONCERT MANCHESTER ', WHICH SHOWS MANY, MANY PHOTOS OF THOSE WHO SURVIVED THE BLAST STANDING OUTSIDE THE ARENA, BEING HELPED BY MEDICS AND POLICE...SOME ARE CLOSEUP PHOTOS. I PRAY YOUR LOVED ONES ARE SAFE.

The 23-year-old pop star was performing her 'Dangerous Woman Tour' at the Manchester Arena on Monday (22 May) when explosions were heard towards the end of the show around 10.35pm.

[NOTE: SOME HAVE SLAMMED THE SINGER FOR HER COMMENTS ABOUT HATING AMERICA.YES, SHE DID SAY THAT, AS REPORTED BY THE L.A. TIMES BACK IN 2015 <HERE>, BUT WHY ATTACK HER FOR THAT IN LIGHT OF THIS TRAGEDY? BIGGER 'STARS' THAN HER HAVE SAID THE SAME THING.]

The arena foyer connects with Victoria train and tram station, a major hub on the northern edge of the city centre.

Greater Manchester Police carried out a precautionary controlled explosion in the Cathedral Garden area of the city at about 01:32. The force confirmed it was not a suspicious item.

Andy Holey, who had gone to the arena to pick up his wife and daughter who had been at the concert, said: "As I was waiting, an explosion went off and it threw me about 30ft from one set of doors to the other set of doors.

"When I got up I saw bodies lying on the ground. My first thought was to go into the arena to try to find my family.

"When I couldn't find them, I went outside with the police and fire and looked through some of the bodies to try and find my wife and daughter.

"I managed to find them eventually and they're OK.

"It was definitely an explosion and it was some force. It happened near the box office at the entrance to the Arena."

Emma Johnson said she and her husband were at the arena to pick up their daughters, aged 15 and 17.

"We were stood at the top of the stairs and the glass exploded - it was near to where they were selling the merchandise.

"The whole building shook. There was a blast and then a flash of fire afterwards. There were bodies everywhere."

A wide area around the venue itself has been completely taped off, and the crime scene appears to be widening, with police pushing people further and further back.

"The police are treating it as a live site, we don't know if this is the end or there are other incidents in that area... we don't know at the moment."

Within an hour of reports of the incident emerging, people began offering spare rooms and beds to people stranded in the city using the hashtag #RoomForManchester.

Hundreds of tweets offering places to stay are being shared and re-tweeted thousands of times.

Wednesday, May 17, 2017

ABOVE IMAGE: Nuclear
reactors line the riverbank at the Hanford Site along the Columbia
River in January 1960. The N Reactor is in the foreground, with the twin
KE and KW Reactors in the immediate background. The historic B Reactor,
the world's first plutonium production reactor, is visible in the
distance.

The federal government produced plutonium
for the country’s nuclear weapon program at Hanford for more than 40
years, creating huge amounts of radioactive and chemically hazardous
waste.

An estimated 444 BILLION gallons of [JUST] contaminated liquid
was dumped into the soil, causing extensive groundwater contamination.
(Image: U.S. Department of Energy)

ABOVE PHOTO: A 20-foot by 20-foot hole in the roof of a storage tunnel at the Hanford Nuclear Reservation near Richland, Wash., Tuesday, May 9, 2017. The tunnel with the collapsed roof was built in 1956 over a rail spur. (CREDIT:U.S. Department of Energy via AP)

A
September 1990 Department of Energy dangerous waste permit application
for the two storage tunnels revealed that some of the parts stored
inside were spewing radioactivity at the rate of 5 rem to 25 rem per hour.THE MAXIMUM "ALLOWABLE" RADIATION DOSE USED TO BE JUST 1 REM PER YEAR, CHANGED TO 5 REMS PER YEAR IN 1981 (SEE PG. 10 OF THAT ACTUAL DOCUMENT BY THE EPA, PG. 16 OF THE PDF), AND FOR NUCLEAR FACILITY WORKERS...50 REMS FOR HANDS AND 30 REMS FOR OTHER ORGANS PER YEAR, BUT REMAINED AT 5 REMS PER YEAR FOR EYES AND GONADS. ACCORDING TO THE NRC, IT IS STILL 5 REMS, WHOLE BODY, PER YEAR. SEE: Title 10, Part 20, of the Code of Federal Regulations (10 CFR Part 20), "Standards for Protection Against Radiation," establishes the dose limits
for radiation workers. Although the limits vary, depending on the
affected part of the body, the annual total effective dose equivalent (TEDE) for the whole body is 5,000 mrem (5 rem).

NOT PER HOUR, PER YEAR.

AND ABOUT THAT "STORAGE TUNNEL"...THAT TUNNEL WAS NEVER DESIGNED TO STORE RADIOACTIVE ANYTHING. IT WAS BUILT TO TRANSPORT NUCLEAR WASTE AND FUEL BY RAIL, THAT RAILWAY BEING AN ABOVE-GROUND SYSTEM COVERED ONLY BY DIRT. THERE IS IMPROPER SHIELDING FOR LONG-TERM STORAGE OF SUCH HIGHLY RADIOACTIVE MATERIALS AS ARE NOW STORED THERE.

The cave-in could have happened as many as four days before its discovery on Tuesday, said energy department spokesman Mark Heeter.

"We don't know exactly when it occurred," Heeter said."

The tunnel collapse reinforced longstanding criticism that toxic remnants at Hanford are being stored in haphazard and unsafe conditions, and time is running out to deal with the problem.

The most dangerous waste at Hanford is 56 million gallons stored in 177 underground tanks, some of which have leaked."

THEY DON'T PATROL THOSE TUNNELS DAILY? THEY DON'T MONITOR THE TUNNELS DAILY? THEY DON'T KNOW WHEN THE THING COLLAPSED?HOW INSANE IS THAT AT THE NATION'S MOST TOXIC NUCLEAR FACILITY WITH THAT HUGE AMOUNT OF RADIOACTIVE MATERIAL JUST 8 FEET UNDERGROUND?

AND ONE MUST WONDER HOW THE MASSIVE AMOUNTS OF RADIOACTIVE MATERIAL BURIED IN THOSE HUNDREDS OF ACRES CAN BE CLASSIFIED AS "MOST AND LEAST" DANGEROUS AND WHO DOES THE CLASSIFYING. AFTER ALL, IT'S BEEN LONG-ADMITTED THAT NO ONE KNOWS WHAT ALL IS BURIED AT HANFORD NOR HOW MUCH IS BURIED THERE NOR EVEN WHERE RADIOACTIVE MATERIAL FROM THE EARLIEST DAYS WERE HASTILY STUFFED AS AMERICA HURRIED TO DEVELOP THE BOMB.

HOW BAD WAS THIS LATEST "MISHAP" AT THE HANFORD NUCLEAR "SUPER-FACILITY" IN WASHINGTON STATE?

SO
BAD THAT THEY DETECTED THE SPIKE IN RADIATION AT SOME DISTANCE FROM THE
COLLAPSED TUNNEL, EVACUATED AND/OR SHELTERED IN PLACE THOUSANDS OF
WORKERS, AND WARNED-OFF AIRCRAFT FLYING ABOVE AND NEAR THE WASTE DUMP
SITE.

THE RADIATION LEAK OBVIOUSLY EXTENDED THAT HIGH ABOVE GROUND.

"Officials requested that the Federal Aviation Administration put a
temporary flight restriction in place, according to the FAA."

THE
TUNNEL HAS A 20-FOOT WIDE GAPING HOLE, VISIBLE BY AERIAL VIEW OF
THE FACILITY, AND INSIDE IS THE EQUIVALENT AMOUNT OF RADIOACTIVE
CESIUM-137 THAT WAS RELEASED BY FUKUSHIMA ON THE DAY THE JAPANESE POWER
PLANT FIRST EXPLODED.

AND YET THE NRC ACCEPTED THE STATEMENT
FROM THE SELF-MONITORING FACILITY THAT THERE WAS "NO IMMEDIATE DANGER
TO THE ENVIRONMENT".

I ASK YOU, WHAT'S WRONG WITH THIS PICTURE? RADIATION
SPIKE DETECTED AT A DISTANCE FROM THE TUNNEL COLLAPSE, RADIATION ABOVE
THE HOLE LEFT BY THE COLLAPSE, EVACUATION OF WORKERS, A NO-FLY ZONE WAS
CREATED, AS MUCH RADIATION INVOLVED AS THE INITIAL MELTDOWN AT
FUKUSHIMA, BUT WE'RE JUST FINE, THANKS...REALLY?NO!THAT'S A BLATANT LIE, ISN'T IT?IS THERE ANY LOGIC TO THE STATEMENT "NO HARM TO THE ENVIRONMENT"?

The tunnel was filled and sealed in 1964, and a second, parallel, and much longer tunnel was built next to it. That one was filled with radioactive equipment contaminated with plutonium, americium, cesium and strontium as the site’s bomb-making factory was dismantled. It was sealed in 2000.It is unclear when contractors running the plant first became concerned that gamma radiation, which changes the molecular structure of wood cell walls, would significantly weaken the first tunnel’s timbers. As early as 1971 the integrity of the wood was checked and determined to be sound. The 1980 study said however that said the wood’s strength had deteriorated to 64.5 percent of its original strength. It predicted that the structure should be sound until at least 1982, by which time the authors anticipated it would be cleaned out. A September 1990 Department of Energy dangerous waste permit application for the two storage tunnels revealed that some of the parts stored inside were spewing radioactivity at the rate of 5 rem to 25 rem per hour.

“This alarming emergency compels us to take immediate action — to hold the federal government accountable to its obligation to clean up the largest nuclear waste site in the country,” Maia Bellon, director of the Washington Department of Ecology, said Wednesday in a written statement.

“It’s not acceptable that the hole could have been open for four days,” said Alex Smith, the nuclear waste manager for the Ecology Department, according to an AP report.A Department of Ecology inspection in 2015 noted that because the tunnels were closed up, “no permanent emergency equipment, communications equipment, warning systems, personal protective equipment, or spill control and containment supplies” were located inside — deficiencies that could complicate emergency efforts in the case of a tunnel fire or other safety incident.

A Government Accountability Office estimate in 2016 placed the total cost of cleaning up the toxic legacy of the U.S. nuclear weapon program at more than $250 billion.

IN 2015, TIME MAGAZINE WROTE WHAT AMOUNTS TO AN EXPOSE' OF THE BAD PRACTICES AND DISREGARD FOR ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT BY THE HANFORD SITE'S CONTRACTORS AND THE DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY'S FAILURE TO MEET DEADLINES FOR CLEANUP AND FOR USING BETTER METHODS TO KEEP LEAKS AND RADIATION LEVELS DOWN. "Unfortunately, the Justice ruling—to scrimp on radioactive waste management while the DOE spends lavishly on bombs—makes for business as usual in the history of Hanford. It’s never been a matter of knowing the danger.

In 1944, Hanford designers understood that the radioactive by-products issuing from plutonium production were deadly. Executives from DuPont, which built the Hanford plant for the Manhattan Project, called plutonium and its by-products “super poisonous” and worried about how to keep workers and surrounding populations safe.

At the same time, DuPont engineers were rushing to make plutonium for the first Trinity test in Nevada in 1945, and they did not pause to invent new solutions to store radioactive waste. Plant managers simply disposed of the high-tech, radioactive waste the way that humans had for millennia. They buried it. Millions of gallons of radioactive effluent went into [OPEN] trenches, ponds, holes drilled in the ground and into the Columbia River. The most dangerous waste was conducted into underground single-walled tanks meant to last ten years.

Knowing the tanks would corrode, as the high-level waste ate through metal, Hanford designers planned to come up with a permanent solution in the future.

But, as the years passed, no new answer surfaced to safely store nuclear waste.

The Atomic Energy Commission, which was in charge of bomb production, left radioactive garbage to its private corporate contractors. For two decades, the AEC had no office to oversee waste management, nor any regulation.

AEC officials didn’t know how much radioactive waste there was or where it was located. They also didn’t pay much fiscal attention to the problem. The AEC allocated to General Electric, which took over from DuPont in 1946, $200,000 a year for waste management, small change in nuclear-weapons accounting.

In the early 1960s, the first tank sprang a leak. Dozens followed suit leaching into the ground a million gallons of high-level waste. From 1968 to 1986, Hanford managers built 28 new, double-walled tanks, designed to last from 20 to 50 years. What was the major design innovation after two decades of experience? An extra tank wall.

Since the '40s, Hanford contractors had enjoyed a free hand to produce plutonium and pollute with little AEC/DOE oversight. And for six decades reports of radioactive discharges were denied. It is hard to fix a problem one cannot see—and that’s been, by any measure, an expensive lesson."

ADDED TO ALL THIS ARE THE REPEATED WARNINGS TO THE FACILITY MANGERS OVER THE PAST 30 YEAR, THREE DECADES, THAT THE TUNNEL HAS BEEN AND CONTINUES TO BE A KNOWN HAZARD, AN "ACCIDENT WAITING TO HAPPEN".HANFORD'S MANAGERS DECIDED TO DO...ABSOLUTELY NOTHING TO PREVENT THIS.

"A series of warnings by state and federal experts, stretching back more than thirty years, preceded this week’s cave-in of a tunnel in Hanford, Washington, that holds lethally radioactive debris from the U.S. nuclear weapons program, according to government documents. A report in 1980 for the Energy Department, which oversees safety and cleanup work at the site, said that wooden beams holding up the tunnel had lost a third of their strength by then. A contractor for the department pointed to the issue again in 1991, warning that by the year 2001, the beams would be further degraded.

A group of academic experts, working under contract to the department, said more alarmingly in a 1,969-page report in August 2015 that the roof of the tunnel in question had been seriously weakened and that a “partial or complete failure” could expose individuals even 380 feet away to dangerous levels of radiation.

No action was taken by the department in response, and earlier this month — the precise date remains uncertain because conditions at the site were not closely monitored — a portion of the roof collapsed at the tunnel, creating a 20-foot square hole. Afterward, the managers of the Hanford site were forced on May 9 to order 3,000 workers to shelter indoors. But instead of shoring up the beams inside the tunnel in question, they poured in 54 new truckloads of dirt."

THAT WAS CRIMINAL, TO IGNORE THE REPEATED WARNINGS AND DO NOTING TO SAFEGUARD RESIDENTS AND WORKERS WHO WERE UNAWARE OF THIS IMPENDING COLLAPSE.

"The tunnel was one of two at the Energy Department’s Hanford reservation used as dumping grounds from 1960 to 2000 for radioactive machine parts, vessels, and other equipment. It was, in short, a tangible expression of the department’s policy of covering over some of its nuclear bomb-making detritus and effectively pretending it isn’t there.

"Fixing the damaged tunnel could prove difficult. The Energy Department said on its Web site that officials are looking at options that would provide a barrier between the contaminated equipment in the tunnel and the outside air that would not cause the hole in the tunnel’s roof to widen further."

RAIN.HOW ABOUT A HEAVY RAIN, WOULD THAT WIDEN THE HOLE?AS OF 5:35 PM, PDST, RAIN IS IN THE FORECAST. WOULDN'T RAIN INTO THAT TUNNEL ALSO MEAN WATER OUT INTO THE GROUND SURROUNDING THE BREACH?

WHAT ABOUT PREVAILING WINDS?WHICH DIRECTION IS THE RADIATION BLOWING?A SOUTHERLY WIND IS CARRYING ANY RADIATION PLUME TO THE NORTH OF THE FACILITY TONIGHT, WITH A CHANGE TO A MORE EASTERLY FLOW TOMORROW.

NO. EVEN LEAD SHIELDING WOULD ALLOW SOME LEAKAGE.AS A PHYSICIST EXPLAINED AFTER THE FUKUSHIMA DISASTER: "There are two reasons why lead isn't
enough. First is that the lead might develop cracks that let radiation
leak through. Second is that the lead isn't actually "removing" any
radiation."

In fact in some cases an inappropriate shielding may even worsen the radiation situation instead of protecting people from the ionizing radiation.

Structural materials of pressure vessel and reactor internals are damaged especially by fast neutrons. Fast neutrons create structural defects, which in result lead to embrittlement of material of pressure vessel.In nuclear power plants the central problem is to shield against gamma rays and neutrons, because the ranges of charged particles (such as beta particles and alpha particles) in matter are very short. On the other hand we must deal with shielding of all types of radiation, because each nuclear reactor is a significant source of all types of ionizing radiation.

Gamma rays travel at the speed of light and they can travel thousands of meters in air before spending their energy.Since the gamma radiation is very penetrating in matter, it must be shielded by very dense materials, such as lead or uranium.AGAIN, NOT DIRT, AND THE ABOVE, BTW, IS FROM NUCLEAR ENERGY ENGINEERS THEMSELVES, FROM THEIR OWN WEBSITE.

Lead is particularly well-suited for lessening the effect of gamma rays and x-rays due to its high atomic number.However, it is important to remember that there is still potential for some rays making it through the shielding, and that an absolute barrier may not be possible in many situations.

Lead is quite ineffective for blocking neutron radiation, as neutrons are uncharged and can simply pass through dense materials."

NOW, FOR OVER 50 YEARS, HANFORD HAS HAD SOME VERY HIGHLY CONTAMINATED NUCLEAR WASTE/GARBAGE SITTING IN A DILAPIDATED, CRUMBLING, VERY CONTAMINATED TUNNEL, COVERED BY A LOUSY 8 FEET OF IRRADIATED DIRT.THIS REDEFINES THE WORD 'INSANITY'.

YET THEY WANT US TO BELIEVE THAT ALL WAS AND IS WELL, EVEN THOUGH, ONCE THEY FINALLY DETECTED THE LEAK, THEY SHELTERED THEIR EMPLOYEES ALL OVER THAT SITE, SENT OUT AN ALARM AND ASKED THE FAA TO STOP AIRCRAFT FROM FLYING THOUSANDS OF FEET OVERHEAD.

IF RADIATION WAS LIKELY AT 10,000 FEET EVEN, WHERE DID IT GO FROM THERE?HAVE THEY TRAINED IT TO HOVER DIRECTLY OVER HANFORD AND NOT DRIFT AWAY?DO THEY WANT US TO BELIEVE THEY HAVE IT TRAPPED IN THAT ROTTING TUNNEL UNDER A FEW FEET OF DIRT?

HANFORD IS THE WORST OF THE WORSE IN AMERICA, AND ONE OF THE WORST IN THE WORLD FOR LEAKS AND "ACCIDENTS" AND "NUCLEAR EVENTS", BUT IT IS BY NO MEANS THE ONLY MAJOR LEAKER.

HARDLY ONE DAY GOES BY IN AMERICA WITHOUT SOME TYPE OF "NUCLEAR EVENT", THOSE SMALL TO LARGE "ACCIDENTS", HUMAN ERRORS, FAILURES OF EQUIPMENT, OR JUST THE DILAPIDATED BUILDINGS LEAKING QUIETLY INTO OUR AIR, WATER AND SOIL...INTO US.

AMERICANS, FOR THE MOST PART, ARE BLISSFULLY UNAWARE WHEN THINGS GO WRONG AT PLACES WHERE RADIATION CAN ESCAPE, ALTHOUGH MOST EVENTS ARE MADE PUBLIC KNOWLEDGE ON THE NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION'S WEB PAGE.

THEY HAVE A "READING ROOM" WHERE ANYONE CAN SCAN THE "EVENTS LOGS" AND SEE WHAT HAPPENED, WHERE, AND WHY DURING EVERY SINGLE MONTH, MONTH AFTER MONTH, YEAR AFTER YEAR.

FROM A MISSING RADIOACTIVE NUT OR BOLT, TO THE MISAPPLICATION OF "RADIATION THERAPY" AT HOSPITALS, TO AN "OOPS MOMENT" AT A RESEARCH FACILITY AND ALL THE WAY UP TO EMERGENCY SHUT-DOWN OF ONE THE 100 NUCLEAR REACTORS IN THE U.S., THEY'RE LISTED...IF THE OFFENDING PARTY CHOOSES TO REPORT TO THE NRC...NOT ALL DO.

FACILITIES HAVE BEEN 'BUSTED' FOR FAILURE TO REPORT, BUT THEY PAY THE FINES AND GO RIGHT ON WITH BUSINESS AS USUAL, KNOWING THERE WILL BE LITTLE, IF ANY, INTERFERENCE FROM THAT 'REGULATORY COMMISSION' WHICH REGULATES VERY LITTLE EXCEPT FINES AND ITS BANK ACCOUNT.

THE WHOLE NUCLEAR INDUSTRY-REGULATORY COMMISSION SCENARIO IS VERY MUCH LIKE HIRING A KNOWN BURGLAR TO WATCH YOUR HOME WHILE YOU GO ON VACATION.

WE'VE TRUSTED THE NRC TO "PROTECT" US FOR DECADES NOW, EVEN THOUGH THEY HAVE BEEN SHOWN TO PROTECT THE NUCLEAR INDUSTRY INSTEAD.

Important: Radiation is accumulative and you must know if the measurements you are looking at is for a single dose or a per hour dosage - This will make a significant
difference to the danger you are in at the time. Radiation exposure
intensity over X time can vary the outcome of possible health risks. Breathing in radiation
or eating contaminated food/drink is a lot worse than direct body exposure.

"NOW, I AM BECOME DEATH..." ~ J. ROBERT OPPENHEIMER IN A TELEVISED STATEMENT IN 1965.

THOSE OLD ATOMIC SCIENTISTS OF THE 1930s TO 1950s OPENED PANDORA'S BOX AND LET LOOSE THE MONSTER WE CALL "NUCLEAR ENERGY", INITIATED THE BUILDING OF NUCLEAR POWER PLANTS TO CREATE THE MATERIALS NEED FOR "THE BOMB" AND FROM THAT POINT TO NOW, WE ARE BEYOND SCREWED.

THERE'S NO GOING BACK.

THERE IS, HOWEVER, A WAY TO STOP THINGS WHERE THEY ARE NOW AND NOT SEE IT ALL INTENSIFY TO THE POINT THAT THERE IS NO STOPPING.

I WAS WRITING A POST TO THIS BLOG ABOUT THE SUDDEN UP-TICK IN THYROID CANCERS IN AMERICA AND ACROSS THE GLOBE WHEN THE CDC BEGAN ISSUING NEW DIRE WARNINGS ABOUT "ZIKA VIRUS" AGAIN.

OHHHH, THE HORROR!

"ZIKA, ZIKA, ZIKA!"

IT WILL CAUSE STERILIZATION, BIRTH DEFECTS, FATAL ILLNESS, SO DON'T HAVE SEX, LET THE CDC COLLECT YOUR URINE, SPERM, SALIVA, AND PRAY FOR A NEW VACCINE.

BUT THEN IT OCCURRED TO ME...THYROID CANCERS, BIRTH DEFECTS, STERILITY... HMMM...WHAT ELSE CAUSES ALL THAT?

R-A-D-I-A-T-I-O-N...RADIATION.

WHAT'S BEEN LEAKING INTO OUR ENTIRE ENVIRONMENT FOR DECADES NOW?

NUCLEAR POWER PLANTS, NUCLEAR MEDICAL FACILITIES, NUCLEAR EVERYTHING.

SO I SPENT ABOUT A WEEK READING AT THE NRC WEBSITE'S LITTLE READING ROOM, THEIR "NUCLEAR EVENTS LOGS".

AND THEN HANFORD HAD A MAJOR "EVENT" AND ALL HELL BROKE LOOSE IN WASHINGTON STATE...

BUT ALSO ELSEWHERE, MANY ELSEWHERES....

FOR NOW, LET'S REFOCUS ON THE LATEST "HANFORD MOMENT".

MAY 9, 2017 HANFORD NUCLEAR FACILITY, RICHLAND, WASHINGTON ["THE MOST RADIOACTIVE-CONTAMINATED PLACE ON EARTH"] FROM CBS"The Department of Energy declared a state of emergency at the Hanford nuclear site after a tunnel storing contaminated radioactive materials collapsed.

The agency said in a statement that the 20-foot section is part of a tunnel that is hundreds of feet long and is “used to store contaminated materials.” The tunnel is one of two that run into the Plutonium Uranium Extraction Facility, also known as PUREX. The section that collapsed was “in an area where the two tunnels join together,” the department said.

The PUREX facility, once used to extract plutonium from spent nuclear fuel, has been idle for years but remains “highly contaminated,” the agency said.

[NOTE: Hanford is the world’s most polluted nuclear weapons production site. The site has been spewing radiation since it was built. The Tea Room has written much about Hanford, with extensive documentation. See <here>, <here> and <here>.]

THE USUAL LIE...The Energy Department claims no radioactive contamination has been reported so far from Tuesday’s tunnel collapse.

But Edwin Lyman from the Union of Concerned Scientists said, "Collapse of the earth covering the tunnels could lead to a considerable radiological release."

An August 2015 report by Vanderbilt University’s civil and environmental engineering department said the PUREX facility and the two tunnels had “the potential for significant on-site consequences” and that “various pieces of dangerous debris and equipment containing or contaminated with dangerous/mixed waste” had been placed inside the tunnels.

Now the Washington state Department of Ecology’s Nuclear Waste Program has announced on Twitter that it has taken legal action against Hanford.

Former Energy Department official Robert Alvarez said that remotely controlled rail cars once carried spent fuel from a reactor to the PUREX chemical processing facility, which then extracted dangerous plutonium. He said the plant lies near the middle of the sprawling 580-square mile Hanford site and was “a very high-hazard operation.”

Many contaminated pieces of equipment, including the rail cars, have simply been left in the tunnels, he said. In an email, Alvarez added that “the tunnels now store contaminated train cars and a considerable amount of highly radioactive, ignitable wastes including possible organic vapors.” And while the older tunnel is reinforced with timber, Alvarez said, “according to a 1997 DOE report, inspection of the tunnels ‘is not feasible because of radiation levels in excess of five roentgens per hour.’ ”A roentgen, or rad, is a measure of radioactive exposure; five roentgens is the annual limit for a U.S. nuclear worker.

The collapse of a tunnel used to store radioactive waste at one of the most contaminated U.S. nuclear sites has raised concerns among watchdog groups and others who study the country's nuclear facilities because many are aging and fraught with problems.

"They're fighting a losing battle to keep these plants from falling apart," said Robert Alvarez, a former policy adviser at the U.S. Department of Energy who was charged with making an inventory of nuclear sites under President Bill Clinton.

"The longer you wait to deal with this problem, the more dangerous it becomes," said Alvarez, a senior scholar at the Institute for Policy Studies, where he focuses on nuclear energy and disarmament. The Energy Department did not respond to requests for comment. The state of facilities in the U.S. nuclear network has been detailed by the Department of Energy, Government Accountability Office and Defense Nuclear Facilities Safety Board. They have noted eroding walls, leaking roofs, and risks of electrical fires and groundwater contamination.

In 2016, Frank Klotz, head of the National Nuclear Security Administration, an Energy Department agency overseeing maintenance of nuclear warheads, warned Congress about risks posed by aging facilities.

Decontaminating and demolishing the Energy Department's shuttered facilities will cost $32 billion, it said in a 2016 report. It also noted a $6 billion maintenance backlog.In the 1940s the U.S. government built Hanford and other complexes to produce plutonium and uranium for atomic bombs under the Manhattan Project.

“That was an era when the defense mission took priority over everything else," said Edwin Lyman, a senior scientist at the Union of Concerned Scientists. "We’re dealing with the legacy of that.” [NOTE: FOR A MORE IN-DEPTH DISCUSSION OF THE MANY FAILINGS AND NRC's RELUCTANCE TO ACTUALLY MONITOR AND INSPECT AND FINE OR CLOSE THE MOST HAZARDOUS NUCLEAR FACILITIES, PLEASE READ "U.S. REGULATORS OPENING UP ON FLAWED NUCLEAR PLANT POLICING"... IT HAS SOME VERY ALARMING DOCUMENTATION.]

REUTERS CONTINUED...

HOW MANY CLOSED SITES IN AMERICA ARE STILL CONTAMINATED AND A THREAT TO CIVILIANS?

A 2015 Energy Department audit said delays in cleaning contaminated facilities "expose the Department, its employees and the public to ever-increasing levels of risk."Risks identified at the sites included leaking roofs carrying radioactivity into groundwater, roof collapses and electrical fires that could release radioactive particles.A 2014 Energy Department audit noted a high risk of fire and groundwater contamination at the shuttered Heavy Element Facility at Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory, which is surrounded by homes and businesses near California's Bay Area.

Problems have also been identified at active facilities including the Savannah River Site, a nuclear reservation in South Carolina. A 2015 report by the Defense Nuclear Facilities Safety Board found "severe" erosion in concrete walls of an exhaust tunnel used to prevent release of radioactive air. A 2016 Energy Department audit of one of the United States' main uranium handling facilities, the Y-12 National Security Complex in Oak Ridge, Tennessee, warned that "intense precipitation or snow" could collapse parts its roof, possibly causing an accident involving radioactivity."It sounds crazy, but it's true," said Don Hancock, who has studied the Tennessee facility in his work at the Southwest Information and Research Center, an Albuquerque nonprofit that monitors nuclear sites.

Nationwide, part of the risk comes from having to maintain and safeguard so many sites with different types of nuclear waste, said Frank Wolak, head of Stanford University's Program on Energy and Sustainable Development.

"You’re asking for trouble with the fact that you've got it spread all over the country," he said. "The right answer is to consolidate the stuff that is highly contaminated, and apply the best technology to it."

EVEN THE 'READING ROOM' WHICH LISTS REPORTED "EVENTS" DOESN'T TELL THE READER THAT SOME EVENTS GO UNREPORTED, THAT SOME HAVE ONLY COME TO LIGHT WHEN LOCAL RESIDENTS DISCOVERED A PROBLEM, OR WHEN WHISTLEBLOWERS SPOKE UP. THE RARE TIMES, AND THEY HAVE BEEN FEW AND FAR BETWEEN, THAT THE NRC PROPOSED ANYTHING THAT WOULD MAKE THOSE DAMNABLE CRUMBLING NUKE SITES SAFER, MAINSTREAM MEDIA HAS STEPPED IN AND MADE IT SEEM THAT THE NRC IS OVER-REACTING OR MAKING IT TOO HARD ON THE NUCLEAR INDUSTRY, THAT IT WOULD BE"TOO EXPENSIVE FOR PLANT OPERATORS TO COMPLY WITH STRICTER REGULATIONS".

AND SO IT GOES...JUST AS IT HAS FOR OVER 60 YEARS. THE BIG BOMB BOYS MADE DAMNED SURE WE'D ALL BE FORCED TO LIVE WITH NUCLEAR RADIATION FOR HUNDREDS OF THOUSANDS OF YEARS, JUST TO MAKE BOMBS, TO BE KING OF THE NUKES, TO DOMINATE OTHER NATIONS AND BE ABLE TO DESTROY THE ENTIRE WORLD.

WHY?WELL, LOOK AT THE ESTIMATED COST TO CLEAN UP HANFORD...$250 BILLION.THAT IS WHY HANFORD WILL NEVER BE CLEANED UP...AMERICANS JUST WON'T DEMAND IT BECAUSE WE'RE TOLD IT WOULD BANKRUPT THE NUCLEAR INDUSTRY AND MAYBE EVEN THE U.S. GOVERNMENT.

THERE ARE 100+ DECREPIT NUKE SITES ON AMERICA AND EACH ONE WILL REQUIRE BILLIONS OF DOLLARS TO DECOMMISSION AND CLEAN UP, IF WE WANT TO BELIEVE THEY CAN BE CLEANED UP.

100+ TIMES EVEN $3 BILLION PER CLEANUP...NOPE, THE INDUSTRY WILL NEVER SPEND THAT! WE ARE SCREWED!

I FOR ONE DON'T GIVE A DAMN IF IT BANKRUPTS THE WORLD... WE NEED TO BURY AS DEEPLY AS WE CAN EVERY NUKE FACILITY THERE IS SO THAT FUTURE GENERATIONS ARE GUARANTEED, NOT JUST HOPED FOR, AND SO THEY WON'T HAVE TO WONDER WHEN RADIATION LEAKS WILL CAUSE THEM TO DEVELOP CANCER OR WHEN A NUCLEAR PLANT WILL BLOW AND END THEIR LIVES.

MEANWHILE, AGENCIES LIKE THE CDC WILL INVENT NEW REASONS WHY OUR BABIES ARE STILLBORN, BORN WITH NEURAL TUBE DISORDERS AND HORRIBLE BIRTH DEFECTS, WHY SO MANY AMERICANS ARE BEING RENDERED STERILE, WHY SO MANY ARE GETTING CANCERS WHO LIVE NEAR A NUCLEAR POWER PLANT, WHY ANIMALS AND PLANTS ARE DEFORMED NEAR THOSE PLACES, AND WHY WE MUST BLAME LUDICROUS THINGS LIKE THE ZIKA VIRUS FOR WHAT IS THE FAULT OF RADIATION... RADIATION, NOT VIRUSES.

BELOW, AT THE END OF THIS BLOG ENTRY, AT THE TRIPLE ASTERISKS *** , FIND VERY PERTINENT AND PERHAPS EVEN LIFE-SAVING INFORMATION THAT I JUST DISCOVERED AND WISH I HAD BEEN ABLE TO MAKE AVAILABLE HERE YEARS AGO. IT'S A LOT OF READING, BUT MAYBE YOU'RE LIKE ME, YOU THINK OUR LIVES ARE WORTH WHATEVER IT TAKES TO SAFEGUARD THEM... READING, CALLING CONGRESS, TRYING TO FORCE THE NRC TO ENFORCE THEIR WORTHLESS REGULATIONS... WHATEVER IT TAKES TO LIVE WITHOUT DAMNED NUCLEAR POWER.

WE HAVE NOT HEARD THE LAST FROM HANFORD...BE PREPARED.

______________________________________________FURTHER READING AND IMPORTANT INFORMATION ON THE REAL EFFECTS OF ALL RADIATION:

*** ~ THE FOLLOWING IS FROM A BOOK BY THE INSTITUTE OF MEDICINE, NATIONAL ACADEMY PRESS, Washington, D.C., 1995: THE NATIONAL ACADEMIES OF SCIENCES, ENGINEERING AND MEDICINE.THE EXTENSIVE QUOTE BEGINS AT CHAPTER 49.

Depending on their physical state, radionuclides may enter the body by ingestion, inhalation, or by absorption through the skin. They may also enter the body through breaks in the skin.Rapidly dividing cells are the most sensitive to ionizing radiation.

The fetus, with its rapidly dividing cells, is especially radiosensitive.

(THIS IS WHY RADIATION EXPOSURE IN UTERO IS SO DANGEROUS FOR DEVELOPING HUMAN AND ANIMAL FETUSES AND WHY YOUNG CHILDREN ARE ALSO MOST AT RISK.)

Genetic effects due to ionizing radiation are well documented in animals and other nonhuman forms of life.No reason exists to assume that humans are exempt from radiation-induced genetic effects.

Radiation exposure in these life forms results in congenital abnormalities and mutations that are transmitted to immediate and remote offspring. In experimental animals, the frequency of genetic effects due to radiation exposure generally increases as a linear-non-threshold function of dose.

In children born to survivors of the atomic bomb detonations, a pronounced association exists between gestational age at the time of exposure and the risk of neurodevelopmental effects. Exposure occurring during the first 7 weeks of gestation did not result in increased risks for mental retardation, reduced IQ, or seizure disorders. Exposures greater than 50 rad during gestational weeks 8 to 15, when nerve development and migration are greatest, showed linear dose-effect relationships for each of the above three endpoints and for microcephaly. This gestational period (i.e., 8 to 15 weeks) is recognized as the most sensitive for the development of fetal neurologic effects (see Case Studies in Environmental Medicine: Reproductive and Developmental Hazards). A no-effect threshold for adverse neurodevelopmental effects during this gestational period could not be determined.

Cytotoxicity from radiation varies among cell types and tissues. In general, rapidly dividing cells that are poorly differentiated are most radio-sensitive.

For example, lymphocytes, primitive stem cells of the bone marrow, mucosal crypt cells of the gastrointestinal tract, spermatogonia, and granulosa cells of the ovary are particularly affected by radiation. Endothelial cells of the microcirculation and epithelial cells of many organs have an intermediate sensitivity. Muscle cells, neurons, erythrocytes, and polymorphonuclear granulocytes are relatively resistant to radiation. In most cases, maximum organ damage becomes evident as injured progenitor cells fail to replace the lost mature cells.

The first radiation-induced malignancy to appear in the atomic bomb survivors was leukemia. The latent period between radiation exposure and clinical recognition of leukemia ranged from 2 to 15 years.

In the Japanese survivors, increased incidences for solid cancers appeared considerably later than the excess of leukemia. Carcinoma of the thyroid was the first of the solid tumors noted. An increased incidence of multiple myeloma and cancers at the following sites was also found: breast (female), lung, stomach, esophagus, small intestine, colon and rectum, brain and nervous system, ovary, uterus, urinary tract, and salivary glands. In populations irradiated occupationally or primarily for medical reasons, an increased incidence of cancers at these sites has also been reported, as well as at other specific sites including liver [due to internally deposited radionuclides], skeleton (BONE), and skin.

As with leukemia, the risks for solid tumors in the Japanese survivors are greater in persons who were younger at the time of exposure. The latency period for solid tumors due to radiation exposure is generally one or more decades.

The radionuclides in the environment of greatest potential concern are cesium-137, iodine-131, plutonium-239, radon-222, strontium-90, tritium, and uranium-238.

As of 1990, 113 nuclear power plants were operating in the United States.

In addition, 75 nuclear reactors were being used for training and research, while about 70 reactors were operating at U.S. Department of Energy (DOE) facilities, and at least 100 were used to power military submarines, cruisers, and aircraft carriers.

Supporting these reactors are mines, mills, processing plants, and storage sites for spent fuel, all of which are potential sources of radiation exposure.

The current deposits of radioactive waste generated by production and use of atomic weapons and nuclear power reactors will remain a potential exposure hazard for 10,000 years or more.

Worldwide, more than 1 billion medical diagnostic X-ray examinations, more than 300 million dental X-ray examinations, and about 4 million radiation therapy procedures or courses of treatment are performed annually. In the United States, over half of the population is exposed to X radiation each year, and more than half of these are diagnostic procedures, including dental diagnosis.

In addition, two early experiments (in 1945 and 1946) at the Los Alamos site resulted in uncontrolled nuclear fission. These accidents caused three early fatalities of workers closest to the nuclear reactions; the 22 other workers in the vicinity of the accidents were irradiated at doses less than 465 rem, and all survived for at least 5 years. The radiation from these accidents would have affected a larger area and a greater number of people if conditions during criticality had also resulted in the explosive release of large amounts of energy, which they did not.

Releases of iodine-131 to air and water occurred at nuclear power plants in Hanford, Washington, during the period from 1943 to the 1960s and at Three Mile Island in 1978. The release of radioactivity at the Three Mile Island nuclear power plant resulted in an average radiation dose to the surrounding population of about 8 mrem over a radius of 10 miles and about 2 mrem over a radius of 50 miles from the reactor.

Accidental releases of radioactive materials may also occur during transport of radionuclides or at sites storing them. Currently, low-level radioactive waste can be accepted at two commercial storage sites: Barnwell, South Carolina, and Hanford, Washington. The storage site at Beatty, Nevada, no longer accepts shipments of radioactive waste. No repository has yet been designated as a permanent storage site for high-level radioactive waste such as spent fuel from nuclear reactors.

Approximately half of those receiving a radiation dose of 500 rem will die within 30 days if untreated. Below 1000 rem, deaths are attributable to failure of the hematopoietic system. For doses between 1000 and 10,000 rem, death occurs due to ulceration and bleeding in the gastrointestinal tract. Doses above 10,000 rem immediately affect the cells of the nervous system. Depending on the exposure dose, these subsyndromes (i.e., hematopoietic, gastrointestinal, and neurovascular), which make up the acute radiation syndrome, may be discrete or overlapping (Table 6).

Lymphocytes are a biologic marker for radiation exposure.

If whole-body radiation has occurred, several hematologic parameters can be used to predict biologic effects, as well as to estimate physical dose. The earliest indicator is a fall in the lymphocyte count, which may reach its nadir within 48 hour.

Minimal symptoms; nausea/vomiting/diarrhea/fatigue in a few hours; reduction in lymphocytes and neutrophils, with delayed recovery; possible bone growth retardation in children

200–300

Nausea and vomiting on first day; following latent period of up to 2 weeks, symptoms (loss of appetite and general malaise) appear but are not severe; hematopoietic subsyndrome; recovery likely in about 3 months unless complicated by previous poor health

300–600

Nausea, vomiting, and diarrhea in first few hours, followed by latent period as long as 1 week with no definite symptoms; loss of appetite, general malaise, and fever during second week, followed by hemorrhage, purpura, inflammation of mouth and throat, diarrhea, and intestine destruction in third week; some deaths in 2–6 weeks; possible eventual death to 50% of those exposed

600–1000

Vomiting in 100% of victims within first few hours; diarrhea, hemorrhage, and fever toward end of first week; rapid emaciation; almost certain death

1000–5000

Vomiting within 5–30 minutes; 100% incidence of death within 2–4 days

>5000

Vomiting immediately; 100% incidence of death within a few hours to 2 days

Kinetic energy of an electron as it moves through a potential difference of 1 volt.

Rate of radioactive decay

curie (Ci)

Radioactivity emitted per unit of time (1 Ci=3.7×1010 disintegrations per second).

Air exposure

roentgen (R)

Amount of X and gamma radiation that causes ionization in air. One roentgen of exposure will produce about 2 billion ion pairs per cubic centimeter of air.

Absorbed dose

rad

Dose resulting from one roentgen of ionizing radiation deposited in any medium, typically water or tissue. One rad results in the absorption of 100 ergs of ionizing radiation per gram of medium.

Biologic effectiveness

rem

Dose of any form of ionizing radiation that produces the same biological effect as 1 roentgen; 1 rem=1 rad x Radiation Weighting Factor (RWF), where the value of RWF depends on the type of radiation as follows:

X radiation=1.0

gamma radiation=1.0

beta=1.0

alpha=20

neutrons=5 to 20, depending on their energy

A new System Internationale (SI) nomenclature has been adopted, which is used by international, as well as many domestic, professional organizations and journals (Table 2).

Table 2. Equivalency of international units

Unit

Symbol

Equivalency

Gray

Gy

1 Gy=100 rad

Sievert

Sv

1 Sv=100 rem

Becquerel

Bq

1 Bq=2.7×10−11 Ci (or 1.0 disintegration per second)

A useful and sensitive biomarker for dose estimation in acute whole-body radiation exposures, as well as to predict the long-term health risks in large populations exposed to low levels of radiation, is the chromosome aberration assay. Radiation induces several nonspecific but characteristic chromosomal abnormalities, particularly dicentric chromosomes. By scoring the frequency of these abnormalities in lymphocytes in the peripheral blood or bone marrow and comparing the frequency to aberrations

produced by irradiating peripheral blood in vitro, a relatively accurate estimation of radiation dose can be made. Chromosomal aberrations are visible within hours after radiation exposure, and the optimum time to perform the assay is within the first few weeks after exposure. Details of sample preparation and the names of laboratories able to perform cytogenetic assays for radiation exposure can be obtained from REAC/TS (telephone: [615]–576–3131 [day]; [615] 481–1000 [24-hour hotline]).

Indicators of internally deposited radionuclides will depend on the biologic fate and the biologic half-life of the radioactive substance. If the metabolic pathway and biologic and physical half-lives are known, an estimate of dose to the target organ can be made by bioassay. Methods for measuring the amount of radioactivity in the body include urinalysis, fecal analysis, whole body scans, and thyroid scans for exposure to radioactive iodine.

The recommendation in 1934 of the U.S. Advisory Committee on X-Ray and Radium Protection (now the National Council on Radiation Protection and Measurements [NCRP]) was to restrict whole-body exposures to less than 0.1 R/day. From 1950 to 1960, attention centered on genetic effects of radiation exposure, and recommendations were proposed to limit exposure to the equivalent of 5 rem/year, which applied to both the general public and workers.

Because any amount of radiation exposure poses some risk, all standards now employ a philosophy that radiation exposures should be limited to levels that are as low as reasonably achievable (ALARA) and consistent with the benefits of radiation to society.

Regulatory agencies in the United States that are involved in radiation control include the Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Department of Transportation, Food and Drug Administration, Occupational Safety and Health Administration, and the General Accounting Office. EPA has also established a standard for drinking water of 5 pCi/L, which applies to radioactivity from radium-226 and radium-228 combined. A new drinking water standard of 20 pCi/L each for radium-226 and radium-228 has been proposed.

0.2 rem (2 mSv) equivalent dose to the woman’s abdomen once pregnancy has been declared

0.05 rem (0.5 mSv) equivalent dose limit in a month once pregnancy is known

*The dose limits for both workers and the public exclude medical and natural background exposures. Note that the dose limits for the public are lower, in general, than those for workers. Workers, by virtue of the ability to work, tend to be a healthier population than the public, which includes susceptible populations, the elderly, and children.

§Stochastic effects are those effects for which the probability of occurrence, rather than the magnitude of the effect, is proportional to dose. Not all irradiated persons show such effects; however, the probability that they will can be described by a dose-response curve that extends to zero with no threshold. Nonstochastic effects are proportional in severity to the magnitude of the absorbed dose; they probably have a threshold below which no effect will be observed because simultaneous injury to many cells is required.